Changes to CHEAPR Cause Rebates to Plummet and Bring Down Overall Results for CT

In addition to the rebate data, we now have data for EV sales nationally and EV registrations in CT for the full year 2019 to provide greater context to what appears to be some seriously misguided decision-making going on in CHEAPR-land.

As noted in earlier posts, the changes made to reduce the size of the rebates, and arguably, more importantly, lower the price cap for eligibility, have caused rebates to plummet 71% in units and 87% in dollar volume. At the current run-rate, the program will only expend about $520,000 of its $3-million allotment.

Tesla Model 3 rebates fell 92% and accounted for 70% of the overall decline. Chevy Bolt rebates fell 85% and Nissan Leaf rebates dropped 75%. Both the Bolt and Leaf declines came from much lower starting points than the Model 3.

We now have CT EV registration data for 2019, and we have two points in time, July 1, 2019, and Jan 1, 2020, enabling the separate evaluation of the first vs second half of the year. As seen in the chart below, from Jan 1, 2019, to July 1, 2019, EV registrations rose 16.2%. From July 1, 2019, to Jan 1, 2020, they rose 8.2%. The changes to CHEAPR took effect on October 15 and correlate with the declining rate of increase.

This is counterpointed by the fact that nationally, sales of EVs were 22% higher in the second half of the year.

CT and the rest of the country are headed in different directions.

EV Growth Slowed in 2019

We like to cheerlead as much as the next person, but the slow 2019 growth in the EV fleet in CT is not something over which to turn cartwheels.

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has just released its topline Jan. 1 EV registration stats. There are 11,677 EVs registered in CT. (The definition of EV includes battery electric vehicles (BEV), plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV), fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEV), and electric motorcycles (BEMC)).

The 11,677 represents growth of 26% over the course of 2019, well below the 78% growth rate in 2018. This mirrors national data, where sales of new EVs (as opposed to our number, which is registrations) suffered the first year-over-year decline since the introduction of the modern EV 10 years ago.

There were 4120 newly registered EVs. Keep in mind that these could be purchased or leased, new or used. However, there was a turnover of 1732 vehicles, leaving us with 2388 net new registrations.

Tesla Provided the Only Serious Growth

The only somewhat bright spot was Tesla, which accounted for 65% of the growth, most of it due to the Model 3.

Mixed Picture on Policy

From a policy perspective, there is a decidedly mixed picture in CT. While many officials talk supportively about EVs, there are still no direct sales permitted (which going forward will affect new EV brands, not just Tesla), and DEEP cut the CHEAPR incentives in October. The latter is likely a contributing factor as to why the growth rate in the second half of the year was 50% lower than the first half.

This blog receives detailed data from the DMV regarding each EV in the state, and a more thoroughgoing analysis will be published once we process those data.

Changes to CHEAPR = large decline in rebates

Club-member, Barry Kresch, penned an Op-Ed that was published in the Hartford Business Journal that discusses the early data regarding the impact of the way DEEP changed the parameters of the CT CHEAPR EV incentive program, and why rebates declined 71%. (This blog has also posted a couple of earlier entries about it here and here.) The incentive was lowered to a maximum of $1500 for a BEV and $500 for a PHEV, and eligibility restricted only to vehicles with an MSRP of no more than $42,000. The lower MSRP cap caused rebates for the Tesla Model 3 to practically disappear, but the effect goes deeper (pun intended).

The word count is constrained for these Op-Eds and the format does not permit graphical exhibits, so this post will be used to expand on a few points. First, these are the graphics from the CHEAPR stats page reflecting the pre and post periods relative to the date of the incentive changes (the incentive change was 10/15). The date range appears in the upper right portion of the image.

While most of the decline was Model 3 related, other vehicles were also affected. We note the steep falloff in the Chevy Bolt. The premium version of the 2020 Bolt begins at $41,985. Bolt rebates declined from 27 to 4. The BMW i3 no longer appears, and it had 2 rebates in the “pre” period. The Nissan Leaf declined from 16 to 4, and it is possible to exceed $42,000 with a Leaf Plus.

If the lowering of the price cap was intended to avoid subsidizing more affluent buyers, this is belied by the fact that the cap on fuel cell vehicles was raised to $60,000.

Massachusetts Incentive Program

As a point of comparison, the Massachusetts incentive program (back online after a brief hiatus) has incentives that are more generous than CHEAPR before the changes. The max incentive for a BEV is 67% higher at $2500. The PHEV rebate is triple CT at $1500 but the vehicle must have an electric range minimum of 25 miles to be eligible, which we think is a sensible requirement. Importantly, there is a price cap and it is $50,000, the same as CT before October 15th.

Current Incentive Structure Penalizes BEVs

We would like to underscore an important point. Batteries are the most expensive part of an EV and the lowering of the price cap, based on the above data, clearly tilts the incentives toward PHEVs, which have increased from 15% to 64% of the rebates. This works against maximizing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Do Incentives Work?

We have been asked this question. Perhaps what is still the best (and most extreme) example occurred in Georgia. At one time, GA had the fourth-highest number of EVs on the road of any state in the country, circa 2015. And it was due to one of the most generous incentives of any state: a $5000 state tax credit for the purchase or lease of a new EV. Not only was the incentive repealed in its entirety, but a $200 road-use tax was imposed on EVs. The result? Between June and August of 2015, EV sales plunged 89%. The road-use tax exceeds the amount of money paid in gas taxes by a typical ICE driver. And, of course, there are too few EV drivers to compensate for the decreasing ability of gas taxes to fund needed road improvements. It was clearly punitive toward EVs. It worked, but it also underscores the value of incentives. (Source: WSB-TV) The EV road use fee is reported to be the brainchild of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the organization of conservative state legislators that writes draft legislation and often supports fossil-fuel interests. See this article in Consumer Reports.

Budget

With respect to DEEP managing its budget, there is one new item on the horizon, namely an incentive for used EVs. This was authorized by the legislature in the same bill that provided the new funding stream for CHEAPR. There has been no announcement from DEEP regarding when this may be implemented, how much the incentives would be, or whether there is any means-testing involved. This could conceivably be what caused DEEP to be concerned about their budget. Given that they were on track to be within their allotment, we think a data-gathering phase before implementing changes would have made for better-informed decisions.

Rebates Are Down 81% Based on Early Data

CHEAPR is the Connecticut EV purchase incentive program, administered by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP). As of October 15, DEEP lowered the incentive levels for all battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles (but not fuel-cell vehicles), as well as lowered the price cap that determines vehicle eligibility. We described these changes in detail here.

As reported in the YaleDailyNews.com, “DEEP representatives told the News that the incentive decreases were necessary to keep the program running.” In other words, they are worried about running out of funds. In legislation passed earlier this year, CHEAPR was funded to the level of $3 million per year through 2025.

Our concern has been that the reductions are too large and that the lower price cap would exclude, in particular, the number one selling EV (by a mile), the Tesla Model 3. The early data seem to bear this out.

DEEP publishes data with a bit of a lag, and as of this writing on Dec. 8, there was a Dec. 2 update published with data through October 31. Also, there isn’t individual day granularity; there are certain interval boundaries that we have to work with. Finally, we don’t know if purchases made before the change, but where the vehicles were delivered afterward, are grandfathered in. All that said, the pattern that emerges is so clear it is like a punch in the nose.

We were able to isolate two 13-day periods, just before and just after the change, something of a “light switch” test. These periods are 9/24 – 10/6 and 10/19 – 10/31.

The number of vehicles for which rebates were issued declined by 81% (from 119 to 23). The dollar amount of the rebates is down 90%. The number of Model 3 rebates declined from 58 to 5. If a straight-line run rate is calculated from the post-change 13-day period, the program would disburse slightly over $600,000, well below the $3 million allotted cap.

Interestingly, if we look at the past 12 months of disbursements before the change (as close as we can get, 10/11/18 to 10/6/19), the amount disbursed was $2,867,500. Are they solving a problem that doesn’t exist?

It is possible that their internal projections that led to the reductions are based on sales forecasts that aren’t supported by current trends. In the legislation that authorized the funding, there is a provision to establish rebates for used vehicles, which has not been done to date. From our perspective, this is the tail wagging the dog. Let’s make the program work. If it runs over budget, we would rather deal with a problem of success. If these changes hold, it will have undermined the intent of the legislation passed in the spring.

The data from DEEP

Dates are noted in the upper right corner.

We expect to publish a subsequent update as more data become available.

Sierra Club releases update of REV Up EV Shopper Study

In 2016, the Sierra Club conducted a study where shoppers went to auto dealers to “shop” for an EV (though in some cases, it was people in the market actually shopping). The results were dispiriting with many dealers not offering EVS, not charging the cars for test driving, having few on the lot and not prominently displaying them.

The prior study was done only in the 10 states following the California fuel economy rules (CARB states). This new study is national, though it breaks out a number of the results by the CARB states versus the rest of the country. While there are some differences in the data points between the studies, the results that aren’t much more encouraging, starting with the 74% headline number (which means that there were no EVs present on the lots of 74% of dealers visited). The picture is slightly better in the CARB states.

Aside from dealer experience, the study makes an effort to provide a broader context, and cites, for example, data on media expenditures by the auto companies on behalf of EVs, which are extremely minimal.

To the extent there was positive information here, there are some dealers that are genuinely making an effort. But it is very ad hoc and dealer dependent. There is no apparent systematic or effective effort on the part of the OEMs to encourage or demand that the dealers make a serious EV sales effort.

The EV Club of CT was recruited by the Sierra Club to send shoppers to dealers and we were happy to oblige.

It should be noted that this isn’t a secret shopper format. The Sierra Club did not direct participating shoppers not to disclose what they were doing.

The full summary can be found here.

The Potential Impact of the Lower CHEAPR Price Cap

Looking at the implication of the changes made to the CHEAPR rebate criteria on October 15, the lower price cap seems directly targeted at excluding the Model 3. The state (and everyone concerned about emissions) seeks to accelerate EV sales, and the Model 3 has higher sales volume than all of the other EV models combined (including BEV and PHEV), according to sales data published by Inside EVs. (Other vehicles will be affected by this, mainly from BMW and Volvo, but there were few rebates for these vehicles.)

The lower trim levels of the Model 3 have been within the previous $50,000 price cap. While it is possible to buy a Model 3 for under $42,000, you are pretty much limited to the base standard range and rear-wheel drive with no options.

Since Tesla began ramping production in the latter part of 2018, the Model 3 accounts for 46% of rebates as reported on the CHEAPR stats page.

If we restrict the range to only 2019 (almost – the range begins on 12/24/18), the numbers are more dramatic with the Model 3 accounting for 54% of rebates, six times the next highest-ranking model, the Toyota Prius Prime.

As can be seen from the filter settings on the above charts, CHEAPR stats are posted through 9/30 as of this writing. From what we have observed, the posting of the stats lags by 3-4 weeks. We don’t know if there is any lead/lag in the implementation (i.e. orders placed before 10/15 with the vehicle delivered afterward). In approximately 8 weeks, depending on the timing of future data loads, we will examine what impact the changes have had, and, over time, we’ll see if it slows overall EV adoption in CT.

EVs and Utility Service Area

We received a file of zip codes served by each utility in CT, which we added into our EV Dashboard model. This map displays on the zip code level, which utility and how many EVs are served. There appear to be some zip codes that are served by multiple utilities, and in those cases, the number of EVS for the zip code would be counted for each utility. We are unable to parse the data to a sub-zip code level. The dots turn into pie charts when multiple utilities share a zip. Also, these are old utility names. So, for example, we have UI and CL&P but no Eversource.

Chart: Barry Kresch

Interactive EV Dashboard – July 2019 Update

The Department of Motor Vehicles has released its semi-annual update of EV ownership in the State of Connecticut. The update is dated July 1. The DMV only publishes the total on its website. We have obtained a detailed file to analyze the profile of EV ownership in CT. This is a file of all light-vehicle EV registrations. It is not new vehicle sales. It includes both purchased and leased vehicles, whether acquired new or used. It reflects newly acquired vehicles, less any turnover. There were 2136 EVs registered in the first half of 2019, but with a turnover of 628 vehicles, the net increase is 1508.

There is no PII. We received make, model, model year, fuel type, and zip code. We added in census data for population by city and median household income by city. The zip code reflects where the vehicle is registered, which could, in some cases, be different than where it is garaged.

This blog post summarizes some of the highlights and uses screenshots, which are not interactive. This link will take you to the browser version of the dashboard, which has the interactivity. Note: pagination is at the bottom of each page. The dashboard also lives on PBI.com, which we can link you to upon request.

Feel free to contact the club with any questions!

Growth

There are now 10,797 EVs registered in CT, an increase of 16% from Jan 2019. This is not a great number. It paces below the CAGR of about 40% that is necessary (based on the Jan. 1 number) to meet the goals outlined in the ZEV Multistate Action Plan. (Granted, this slower growth is occurring against a backdrop of slowing automobile sales generally.)

Fuel Type

53% of EVs are of the Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) variety. Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) are growing at a faster rate, mainly due to Tesla. However, the great majority of EV offerings from most other manufacturers are PHEVs, which is driving this. We expect the balance will change in a few years. BEMC refers to Battery Electric Motorcycles, and FCEV refers to Fuel Cell EVs.

Make

The story this year, much like last year, was that most of the growth was driven by Tesla. This is despite whatever sales friction exists due to CT still being among the handful of states that do not allow Tesla to open their own stores, and, of course, Tesla being in the phase-out of the Federal Tax Credit. Hyundai had a modest pop. All of the other manufacturers were either treading water or had lost ground. Honda, which had a boost last year with the PHEV Clarity, has flattened. There is a report in Inside EVs that Honda has pulled back on distribution and is now selling it only in California. The two makes that lost the most ground were Chevrolet and Ford. The chart excerpt below shows the trend of registered EVs by make for the four data points we have going back to 2017. The chart is an excerpt and includes those with the highest numbers as of July 2019.

Tesla now accounts for 34% of EVs registered in the state. As recently as 2018, the numbers for Tesla, Chevrolet, and Toyota were close, but that is no longer the case.

This waterfall chart looks at the contribution to incremental growth between January and July by make. Tesla was responsible for 52% of net EV growth. This was an increase of 780 units out of the net growth of 1508. Hyundai accounted for 32%. All other makes ranged from slightly below 4% to -4%.

Model

The Tesla Model 3 is now the most widely registered Model, less than 2 years after it became available. And, as one can see from the jump in the size of the bar, it is THE story in the EV world for the past 12 months. It is a great early success story, has overwhelmed every other model, and has arguably been something of a double-edged sword for Tesla as the growth of the Models S and X has slowed (more so the S).

The Prius Plug-in is second. (Note: The Prius numbers combine the gen 1 Plug-in Prius with the newer, and better selling, Prius Prime.) In the third position is the Model S, followed by the Chevy Volt. With the discontinuance of the Volt in March 2019, the sales of this model are drastically reduced as GM clears out remaining inventory. On this chart, the number of Volts shows a decline since January, meaning that turnover is greater than newly acquired vehicles being registered. This chart is also an excerpt of the most widely registered models as there are too many to display here.

EVs by City/County

The cities with the highest number of EVs are Stamford (524), Greenwich (489), Westport (431), Fairfield (316), and Norwalk (296). The chart below is an excerpt of the cities with the most EVs.

Fairfield County, in general, is where the largest concentration of EVs can be found, accounting for 40% of EVs in the state.

Per-Capita

On a per-capita basis, Westport is the leading city, followed by Weston, New Canaan, Woodbridge, and Wilton. The chart below is also an excerpt due to space limitations.

In the chart below, the size of the bubble reflects the count of EVs and the coloration is based on per-capita. The darkest blue-green has the highest per-capita and the deepest red is the lowest.

EVs by Zip Code

The final map displays EVs by zip code. Yes, the chart is dense where the populatioin is dense, and it reinforces what we already know from the cities, but gives added granularity. Notice how adjacent zip codes in Fairfield County span the highest to lowest levels of EV representation.

The newest version of the Electric Vehicle Interactive Dashboard has arrived.

Highlights

• EV growth was strong in 2018 but there is still a very long way to go to achieve the objectives set forth in the Multi-State ZEV Action plan.
• There are 9,289 registered EVs in the state as of Jan 1, 2019, an increase of 78% from the year ago point in time.
• The increase was largely powered by the Tesla Model 3.
• Plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) still account for somewhat more than half of all registered EVs.
• The first fuel cell vehicles appeared in the state in 2018.
• Tesla, despite only selling high-priced vehicles, including the higher-priced version of the Model 3, accounts for 31% of all registered EVs.
• The most widely registered model is the plug-in version(s) of the Toyota Prius (combining the first-generation Plug-in Prius and the successor Prius Prime).
• 61% of registered EVs are from the 2017 or 2018 model year.

Introduction

While the DMV is required by statute to publish the number of EVs in CT every six months, they do not publish any sort of breakdown. It is simply a topline number that can be used to measure the overall progress relative to the goals adopted when the state joined the Multi-state ZEV Action Plan (MZAP). Unless one has the financial wherewithal to subscribe to one of the syndicated research services that process automobile registrations, this is the only place to see the breakdown of electric vehicles in CT.

The Electric Vehicle Club of Ct (EVClubCT) has received files from the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles for the past three years, and from this we have developed the Interactive EV Dashboard. This blog post summarizes the findings. At the end of this post is information about how to link directly to the dashboard.

Technical Notes

These files have come to us via Freedom of Information Act request, but the timing, the included fields, and format have varied across the years. We work with it as best we can. For example, the file this year did not include fuel type. Even when it did, in 2017 and 2018, the DMV does not have Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles (PHEV) codified as a fuel type. We build that from the model name. The topline numbers published by the DMV do include all EV fuel types, which are Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV), PHEV, and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEV).

We have received files from February 2017, March 2018, and January 2019 (actually all vehicles registered as of December 31, 2018). This asynchronous timing, along with our manually applying the fuel type designation, will cause our numbers to be slightly different than the DMV.

The dashboard is simpler this year because we did not receive the city associated with each vehicle, nor did we receive totals to give us a denominator. Consequently, we could not update our analysis by city, county, median income, per capita, and percentage of the fleet. We have make, model, and model year only.

Definitions

The numbers are based on vehicle registrations. NOT SALES. This is the most often misunderstood point about this exercise. In other words, it is cumulative minus any turnover. Vehicles may have been acquired new or used, purchased or leased. Also, the model year is exactly that, the vehicle model year – not the year in which it was sold.

Overall Growth

This blog has published in February that the number of registered EVs grew 78% year over year in 2019. The growth during the 9-month interval covered by the dashboard is 48%. Either number is an improvement over the 35% from the prior year. But the improved growth rate still leaves a big gap between the 9,289 EVs currently registered and the MZAP objective of about 500,000 EVs by 2030. We would need a going forward compounded annual growth rate of about 44% to achieve this level. The growth rate was relatively strong this year with the most significant factor being the pent-up demand for the Model 3.

All of the charts below are from the data in the dashboard, which, as earlier noted, use months other than January for 2017 or 2018.

Fuel Type

PHEVs are still the more dominant fuel-type. At some point, we assume that BEVs will dominate and we note that General Motors has announced going forward that it will only produce BEVs. But the PHEV is an important transitional power-train. As noted by DEEP at their clean transportation forum on January 30, PHEVs have a big impact on reducing fossil fuels and will be with us for some time until infrastructure and battery technology can overcome range anxiety and limitations.

The first fuel cell vehicles have appeared in the file since we began doing this. There were – wait for it – drum roll — TWO! Both are the Toyota Mirai. Toyota, which is heavily invested in hybrids, seems to also be looking to develop FCEVs rather than BEVs. Their only BEV was the short-lived compliance vehicle BEV version of the RAV4. If you think EV charging infrastructure is inadequate, well, there are currently as many refueling options for FCEVs as there are vehicles. No waiting! When last we checked, there was one in Hartford and one in Wallingford. FCEVs are true zero tailpipe emissions vehicles (and like with electricity, there is a variable carbon footprint depending upon how the hydrogen is manufactured). The CT purchase incentive program, CHEAPR, offers a $5,000 rebate for FCEVs, larger than for the other vehicle types. Though there are complaints about the lack of EV charging stations, it is about the hardware and not the power source, as the grid is ubiquitous. That is the nature of the infrastructure challenge facing hydrogen power, along with the high cost of the cars.

Make

Tesla, despite CT not allowing them to open stores in the state, has widened its lead, increasing from 26% to 31% of all registered EVs. 2,894 of the 9,289 EVs are Tesla. The only two other makes to exceed 10% in share are Chevrolet (19%) and Toyota (17%), with Toyota growing at a faster rate than Chevy. Below is an excerpt of the chart showing the 3-year trend by make, and below that, a donut chart showing the vehicle count as a share of the total.

% Of Growth By Make

Tesla was responsible for 42% of the unit growth, followed by Toyota and Honda, both at 11%. The vast majority of automakers were responsible for less than 1% of the growth each.

Model

As noted earlier, the Model 3 was the big story, with 1,025 units registered in CT in 2018, placing it fourth in terms of number of vehicles registered following the Prius (1,533), Model S (1,413), and Volt (1,267). These are the only vehicles with over 1,000 registrations. The Leaf and Bolt follow. One other new car made a modest splash, the PHEV version of the Honda Clarity, now with 409 units registered in 2018. Below is an excerpt.

Model Year

It isn’t surprising that most EVs are of the 2017 and 2018 model years. There were a few 2019 models that sneaked in at the end of the year. If you look at the legend below, you might find it surprising that there is an EV from 1998. It is actually a Ford Ranger. That’s all we know. Is it some one-of-a-kind DIY thing? Or an error in the file (it happens)? We’ll leave it there.

Closing Thoughts

• While EV ownership had strong growth in 2018, there is a long way to go to reach the MZEV goals.
• Early signs are pointing to a slower growth year in 2019. EV sales nationally grew 11% in the first quarter of 2019 relative to 2018. (And in Q1 2018, the Model 3 had not yet scaled.) This compares to growth of 81% for the full year of 2018 over 2017. There are relatively few new near-term EV introductions. Among them are a refreshed Leaf with a 150 mile range, the Kia Niro rated for 239 miles, Hyundai Kona rated for 258 miles, 200+ mile luxury vehicles in the Audi E-Tron and the recently introduced Jaguar I-Pace. Tesla will begin producing the lower cost version of the Model 3 and may possibly offer a lease option later this year. Deliveries of the Model Y from Tesla, expected to be another significant launch, will not begin until late 2020, assuming it remains on schedule. GM has canceled the Volt, a fairly large seller by EV standards, and announced a pivot towards a BEV only strategy centered under the Cadillac brand which will take a few years to become manifest.
• The EV Club was advocating for HB 7142, which would have permitted direct sales by a manufacturer without a dealer network (i.e. Tesla at this point in time). While Tesla’s announcement of a move to an Internet sales model has mooted this, the fact remains that this company has an outsize presence in the EV market in the state, though likely it could have been larger. This sales model may also be a consideration for prospective new entrants in the EV space.
• There were a couple of other bright spots outside of Tesla, mainly the Toyota Prius Prime and the Honda Clarity (PHEV version, which has an electric range only slightly below the Volt), but most of the automobile manufacturers are not generating much EV sales volume at this time.
• Both Tesla and GM are in the Federal Tax Credit phase-out period. Many of the newly announced EVs are a few years away from being available.
• Fuel prices have remained fairly low.
• There are a number of policies that the club advocates. Here are some important ones:
  • The CT CHEAPR rebate program does not have an ongoing source of funding and could run out this year.
  • We advocate the Federal Tax Credit be continued, preferably turned into a rebate, and that the 200,000 unit cap per manufacturer be removed.
  • Building codes should be updated to require pre-wiring for EV chargers, with particular attention to multi-unit dwellings.
  • Better time-of-use electrical rates.
  • Incorporation of EVs in public sector fleets.
  • Policies that de-carbonize the grid.
• While there are some encouraging signals, including a study from AAA indicating that one in five drivers say they are likely to go electric for their next vehicle purchase, this is no time to take our foot off the “gas.”

The browser version of the dashboard is available here

There is a Powerpoint, obviously not interactive, of the dashboard visuals downloadable from the home page.

If any reader would like access to the PBI.com version, let us know via the website contact form.

The early data are in and the number of EVs registered in CT as of December 31, 2018 has increased by 78% relative to one year ago.

We do not have much detail below this high-level information, but we know a few things and can surmise more.

The total number of EVs registered as of 12/31 is 9289, up from 5206 one year ago. There were 5063 PHEVs registered and 4208 BEVs. (This doesn’t 100% tie back due to a few outliers). The PHEV number was up 69% and the BEV number was up 91% relative to 2017.

Even though we do not have granular data, we know that 2018 was the year of the Tesla Model 3. The large increase and higher proportion of BEVs relative to past years is no doubt due to the Model 3, which has blasted through all previous EV sales records. Our opinion is that this number is also possibly a bit understated. There is a lead-lag to getting a Tesla registered in CT due to the fact that it is still not legal for Tesla to open stores in CT. Consequently, Teslas must be purchased out of state and then the registration has to be transferred. We have one member of our club who was upset that the transference did not occur until after Jan. 1, which cost him part of his tax credit. It is likely he was not alone.

Below is a chart that shows the difference in EV sales by make in 2018 relative to 2017. It is based on analysis of national data published in Inside EVs.

Our club is brand agnostic. We want to see people buy EVs and we don’t care which one they choose. The change for Tesla is obviously light years ahead of every other company. But the bigger point, or question, is about the lack of traction on the part of all of the other manufacturers. It looks like they aren’t really trying and we hope that can change. Almost all of them have made numerous and ambitious announcements of EVs in development. Audi has purchased a 60 second spot in the Super Bowl to advertise EVs. Based on the going rate, they will have spent over $10 million for the privilege.

The legacy automakers will argue that their inability to generate EV sales momentum is due to lack of consumer interest exacerbated by relatively low fuel prices. Tesla is demonstrating that this is not the case (and doing so with a form factor – a sedan – that has been falling out of favor with consumers).

When one sees numbers like these, and being aware of the aggressive EV adoption goals in the Multistate ZEV Action that CT has signed on to, it is hard to justify throwing up barriers that inhibit sales by Tesla or other companies which sell direct, such as Rivian, the maker of an electric pickup.

We hope that Audi is throwing down a marker, and we hope the other companies follow through in a serious way on their EV pronouncements. In the meantime, enabling Tesla and other new EV manufacturers to open stores in CT might induce the legacy carmakers to compete in the showroom and not the legislature.